| Author |
|
Rance Johnson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 269
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 1:48pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
JB, the way I understand it is that at least here in the States the matter of whether or not Moore needs to get permission to use Wendy is not decided. That doesn't seem to be the case in England. And while I share your belief that using Wendy or any of the other characters in the manner Mr. Moore has in Lost Girls is innapropriate, in the end it is nothing more than opinion colored by our own moral belief systems. Therefore not reading it would be the correct course of action to take, while calling other people "assholes" or attempting to enforce others to abide by our beliefs if they do want to read it is simply sticking our noses into their business.
Edited by Rance Johnson on 25 June 2006 at 1:51pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133563
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 1:50pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
If you don't like the subject matter, don't subject yourself to it, and let other people make up their own minds about whether they will read/view it for themselves.**** You're missing the big picture here, Rance. Even setting aside the unethical elements, using characters created for children's books (and created by someone other than the one using them) for pornography goes far beyond "If you don't like it, don't look." Respect for the works of others -- especially those whose literary shadow is cast far wider and deeper than one's own -- lies at the very heart of this. Trash a character like Swamp Thing, and the argument could be made that it's "only a comic book" and therefore "doesn't matter" (altho I am sure you can imagine by now that I would not be on the supporting side in that particular debate!). Trash Alice, Wendy, Dorothy, etc, and you are painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa. It might be a very good mustache, but why is it there? Why coattail your "work" on someone else's greatness? (And, allow me to be totally cynical for just one moment: we would not be having this discussion, nor would "Lost Girls" be getting this kind of attention, had Moore chosen to use characters of his own creation.)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133563
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 1:55pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
I understand it is that at least here in the States the matter of whether or not Moore needs to get permission to use Wendy is not decided.*** You are misinformed. The trademark (or other such legal stricture) on "Peter Pan" stands in the US until 2017, as I recall. +++ Therefore not reading it would be the correct course of action to take, while calling other people "assholes" if they do want to read it is simply sticking your nose into their business. *** As already noted by someone other than myself, the one who is "sticking his nose into other people's business" is Alan Moore. There was no great clamor for a pornographic treatment of these characters. (And don't think this comes from my "moral belief system". I have no problem with pornography per se. What I dispute is the right of Alan Moore (or anyone else) to use children's book material owned by someone other than himself for pornographic purposes. What next? Christopher Robin sodomizes Kanga? Wouldn't that be an interesting study of a Victorian boy experimenting with bestiality?)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Rance Johnson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 269
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 1:56pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I agree completely that had Moore used his own characters there wouldn't be the attention paid to it that there is now. I think it is simply sensationalism at it's worst. However, as someone else here pointed out, I don't think there will be any lasting harm done to any of the characters, and am skeptical that there will even be any temporary harm done. You could argue that these characters, even though they are supposed to be the ones we are all familiar with really aren't as they stray so far from the archetype. I mean, that's how I feel about the Gwen Stacy in Sin's Past.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Rance Johnson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 269
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 2:07pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
John Byrne wrote:
| You are misinformed. The trademark (or other such legal stricture) on "Peter Pan" stands in the US until 2017, as I recall. |
|
|
It's simply what I read from another poster in this thread. Is it that the children's hospital doesn't own the character but some other entity then?
John Byrne wrote:
| As already noted by someone other than myself, the one who is "sticking his nose into other people's business" is Alan Moore. There was no great clamor for a pornographic treatment of these characters. |
|
|
Whether there was some great demand for this type of story or not isn't the point I was trying to make however. If it doesn't sell well all the better as far as I am concerned. I simply made the point that one could choose not to read it if they didn't like it, and allow those who were interested in such content to enjoy.
John Byrne wrote:
| (And don't think this comes from my "moral belief system". I have no problem with pornography per se. What I dispute is the right of Alan Moore (or anyone else) to use children's book material owned by someone other than himself for pornographic purposes. What next? Christopher Robin sodomizes Kanga? Wouldn't that be an interesting study of a Victorian boy experimenting with bestiality?) |
|
|
In this incarnation of the characters, they are no longer children's book material are they? The same goes for your example of Christopher Robin and Kanga. These stories are not intended for children regardless of the origin of the characters.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jacob P Secrest
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4068
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 2:16pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
I agree with JB on this, it is distasteful, but more importantly it is illegal.
If Peter Pan was in the public domain, I would still call LOST GIRLS
distasteful, but I would see no reason to complain about it, I just wouldn't
read it.
However in this case Moore is legally very much in the wrong.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Rance Johnson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 269
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 2:22pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Jacob, I think that whether or not it is actually illegal will be decided in a court of law.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Casey Sager
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 746
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 2:40pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I'm not a fan of material like this, done in this manner. It does disturb me in a way that there is a fanbase who wants this kind of material. I would group them in the same catagory as people who like seeing Luke Cage have anal sex with Jessica Drew or people who think it's "kewl" to read Nick Fury saying the F word. I have to imagine these are the same kinds of people who wouldn't mind reading an adult version of Peanuts depicting Charlie Brown grudge f*ck*ng Lucy. I can only shake my head in dissapointment at these people.
Casey
Edited by Casey Sager on 25 June 2006 at 2:42pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Rance Johnson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 269
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 3:02pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
You're probably right Casey. Many of the people who are intrigued by this Lost Girls book are probably as intrigued by the other examples you cited. Does that mean that the only people who are interested in this subject matter are the types of people you used as examples? I doubt it. Even if that were so, what difference does it make to you? These other people have money and they are willing to spend it on this type of content. You can always opt to spend your money on something else.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jacob P Secrest
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 October 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4068
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 3:11pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Rance Johnson wrote:
Jacob, I think that whether or not it is actually illegal will be decided in a
court of law. |
|
|
He published work featuring a character he doesn't own the rights to, that
is copyright infringement, that is illegal.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Casey Sager
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 746
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 3:29pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Rance,
I do opt to spend my money on something else. I thought this was a topic of conversation and I was expressing my point of view.
Casey
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36087
|
| Posted: 25 June 2006 at 4:01pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
It's Rance's position that if you're not buying it, it doesn't affect you, and therefore you really have no right to complain. Not a position I agree with at all. I'm a fan of Luke Cage. He's a character created for a mainstream, all-ages audience. That Bendis! decided to write him having anal sex with another character in the MU is abhorrent to me. Sure, it was in a MAX title. But that doesn't mean that because it wasn't meant for children, as Rance has been wont to justify LOST GIRLS, that it's not wrong to use an all-ages character in such an adult manner. That also doesn't mean that I can't speak out about it if I think that it's a depiction of a specific kind of character that has no place in comics.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
